6 Page Memo From Pelosi To House Dems Regarding Mueller Testimony Smears Trump

a reply to: shooterbrody

And if you read barrs statement you would see barr and Rosenstein did NOT find cause to charge regardless of the doj policy.

A) Barr misrepresented. On purpose.

B) DOJ says they cant charge a president.

C) The report says there were likely crimes.

That doesn't mean there was no crime to charge.

You people are silly.

a reply to: Liquesence

Barr made the decision Mueller would not.
Barr did not misrepresent anything.
Had Mueller simply done his duty there would have been no need for Barr and ROSENSTEIN to mske the declination.

I am not silly.
You simply have NO grasp of our civics or the doj special council procedures.

The attorney general of the usa said there were no crimes. He more than ANYONE has the right and constitutional authority as confirmed by congress to determine such.

Your monday morning quarterbacking is weak.

Watch for Mueller to get grilled >>>>>>>>>>>

Get the sauce ready !!!!

BREAKING NEWS ON EVE OF MUELLER HEARING: New Report Reveals Mueller Omitted Key Details on Joseph Mifsud and Papadopoulos

a reply to: projectvxn

Have you read at least the executive summary that I posted?

a reply to: grey580

Please site where mueller recommended charges.
I will wait.

a reply to: grey580

From YOUR link
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. 

We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President's conduct.

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. 

NO CHARGES RECOMMENDED
PERIOD!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: grey580

From YOUR link
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. 

We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President's conduct.

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. 

NO CHARGES RECOMMENDED
PERIOD!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Most of the Dems in Congress Know that if They Vote for Impeachment , they Will be Out of a Job in 2020 . Blue Turns Red , Democrats are Dead ........

a reply to: grey580

I've read the vast majority of this report.

Mueller never provided any proof that the Russians hacked DNC emails.

Mueller never probed the source of the intel which turned out to be the Clinton campaign and subversive elements of the FBI and CIA where they conducted an illegal cointel operation against an innocent US citizen in order to gin up "proof" of Russian collusion.

Mueller never probed the foreign intelligence meddling that provided the now-famous dossier and was used as grounds for obtaining a warrant that the FBI knew was bogus.

Everything that predicated this investigation and set the wheels in motion for this report to even exist is an affront to the Constitution. Robert Mueller did not act in good faith.

a reply to: projectvxn


A Precursor to Arrests and Indictments ? .Hmm.......

originally posted by: carewemust
Pelosi at the NAACP convention. I think she's losing her cognitive sharpness.

mobile.twitter.com...

Oh my, was she trying to say ass,gas or grass or.......grasp? WTF? I almost felt sorry for her but then I came to my senses.

Bless the Left’s hearts.

They simply can’t help themselves. It’s the scorpion & frog. Simply in their nature.

Nancy knows 2020 is toast. The field is from the Island of Misfit Dems.

Their endgame isn’t the White House. They are going all in to hold the House and flip the Senate. That’s the 2020 end game.

originally posted by: tinner07

Can't wait to watch the clown show this Wednesday.

Been watching the clown since he took office... you must be anticipating the upcoming twitter storm from him.

But Wait !!!!

But ?

Russians !!!!! 🤣

Azerbaijan Twins !!!!

Brought directly to you by .... SPUTNIK !!

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I suggest that you at least read Bowdens' interpretation of the Mueller report.

Even without any other information you should read it and form your own opinion about Trump.

You mean... read it and accept Bowen's interpretation about Trump?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Mueller report did NOT exonerate Trump, the Mueller report found 10 cases of obstruction of justice, but because you cannot indict a sitting president because of a legal memo from the 70s. This is what Mueller said.

Boys and girls, this simply means TRUMP is a criminal but currently out of the DOJ's reach. Trump supporters are knowingly supporting a criminal.

a reply to: richapau

So uh if you were paying attention there is no legal justification for your "did NOT exonerate" and mueller was forced to admit such under oath to congress.

www.foxnews.com...

“Can you give an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller.
“I cannot, but this is a unique situation," Mueller replied.

so mueller invents legal precedent?
sorry it does not work that way here
that is why the justice department determines someone is not exonerated


nice try tho
no charges
no collusion
no obstruction

guess where donald j trump will sleep tonight

originally posted by: Liquesence
"the narrative that the Russians allowed Trump to win in 2016 and that his administration, "engaged in unparalleled abuses of power and corruption while hiding the truth from the American people." "

Which is not exactly untrue.

Really? The Russians 'allowed Trump to win'?

How, exactly, did they go about doing that?

Quite the contrary: it's very true, and it's well established.

We all wait with baited breathe for you to provide one - just one - shred of evidence to back up your baseless lies.

a reply to: grey580

Someone who was never a politician asking whether x or z is legal and whether it can/should be done doesn't equal to "he wanted to obstruct justice..." If it were up to you and the rest of the Liberals/democrats POTUS Trump should know it all and never ask/find out what he can and can't do...

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Mueller report did NOT exonerate Trump, the Mueller report found 10 cases of obstruction of justice, but because you cannot indict a sitting president because of a legal memo from the 70s. This is what Mueller said.

Boys and girls, this simply means TRUMP is a criminal but currently out of the DOJ's reach. Trump supporters are knowingly supporting a criminal.

Could you excerpt those 10 cases, and please do not just excerpt Mueller's claims, excerpt what POTUS trump said and the context of those statements...

To this day you leftists can't figure out that Steele IS A FOREIGN AGENT, whom admitted he wanted to influence our elections by doing everything he could to depose a duly elected POTUS. Most of the info that Steele wrote CAME FROM THE RUSSIANS... You know, the same people certain morons have been claiming were trying to help Trump?... If the Russians were trying to help Trump, then why is the Steele dossier full of LIES from Russian officials? Why were the Russians involved in pro AND ANTI trump rallies?...

The Russians did interfere with our elections, and democrats/liberals have been helping by claiming LIES that came mostly from Russians and anti-Trump drunktards, the Australian official, were/are truth...

a reply to: richapau

By saying they found no evidence Mueller's pro-CLinton team did exonerate Trump. But since the Mueller team was made to help democrats/liberals they had to input their own claims of "he wanted to even though he didn't..." Ironic, in the case of Hillary's emails the pro-CLinton FBI exonerated her even before she, or her lawyers were ever interviewed, and Comey claims "she didn't intend to commit a crime," but she did commit several crimes... Trump didn't commit ANY crime and no evidence was found to impeach him but Mueller went to claim "even though there is no evidence WE THINK he intended to obstruct justice..." Ironic isn't it?